I don't think a valid site or the odd missing file is enough to cancel
a release - but if there are multiple such issues it should also be
taken into consideration.

Even the odd -1 vote can be ignored if there are enough positive votes.

On 15 September 2016 at 12:42, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2016-09-15, Gilles wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:41:01 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> "I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>>> Github."
>>> I know our release process is a pain, so maybe we should see if we
>>> can
>>> improve it. This needs a separate thread.
>> I'm not the one who complains regularly that the release process
>> is a "nightmare".
> I don't share this sentiment. There are a quite a few manual steps, but
> I don't believe they can be avoided.
> Then again I've cut enough releases to know which alternative has worked
> for me.
> My workflow is different enough that it likely never is the first option
> you find in the docs. At least when uploading stuff to Nexus it is not
> even listed as alternative at all (I use an upload bundle). I didn't
> want to pollute the instructions with even more alternatives.
>> Who decided that "README.md" and "CONTRIBUTING.md" _had_ to be part
>> of the distribution files?
> I don't think anybody decided that. What I'd expect (I didn't
> participate in the RNG vote, sorry) is that the source distribution
> matches the git tag. And I think this was what Stian brought up. It's
> not about the two files but about the difference between tag and
> distribution.
> We've probably never formally said the two should match either, it's
> just what I'd expect. Why would anybody want to exclude anything from
> the source distribution that is inside or SCM?
>>> It's rare to release without more than one RC.
>> You'd have to wonder why.
> One thing RMs tend to forget is that there is no veto on a release
> vote. If you've got enough +1s you can simply go ahead if you disagree
> with the occasional -1.
>>> It looks pretty lame IMO if the first thing you see, our site or
>>> github, is wrong or missing info. It could make one wonder about
>>> overall attention to detail...
>> Nothing _looks_ lame.
> Please mind Gary's "IMO" in the paragraph above.
> "lame" is hardly objective :-)
> Stefan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Stian Soiland-Reyes

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Reply via email to